0 Comments
53
85
12
-32
282
8:13
8
0
Nuke4.9
-21%
Records Match
Record/Time/Map
Val/Avg
Set by
Rival
Lineups
Lineup
Starter
Starter
Starter
Starter
Starter
Historical Maps winrate Last 6 months
Ancient
58%
Inferno
37%
Dust II
12%
Nuke
12%
Overpass
9%
Mirage
5%
Vertigo
3%
Last 5 maps
Ancient
58%
33
7
Inferno
59%
32
15
Dust II
50%
10
31
Nuke
38%
13
34
Overpass
42%
33
2
Mirage
58%
26
24
Vertigo
43%
7
43
Last 5 maps
Ancient
0%
3
10
Inferno
22%
23
1
Dust II
62%
13
3
Nuke
50%
16
2
Overpass
33%
3
11
Mirage
53%
30
1
Vertigo
40%
5
8
Last results
Head to head
Past matches
- lwwwl
- lllww
Info
Match analysis of PROSPECTS vs Zero Tenacity by the Bo3.gg Team
In the CS2 match between PROSPECTS and Zero Tenacity, a series of thrilling battles unfolded with a score of 1-0, on the following maps: Nuke, and victory was secured by PROSPECTS. The MVP of this match was spooke.
PROSPECTS analytics
The team PROSPECTS secured 21 out of 21 rounds, showcasing their ability to control and adapt to various situations. They won on the maps Nuke. They also successfully set 1 bombs during the match.
The standout players for PROSPECTS were spooke contributed 18 kills and FRANSSON contributed 21 kills. Their exceptional skills played a pivotal role in securing the win. Thanks to coordinated effort, the team inflicted 8804 overall damage.
On the defensive side, PROSPECTS held their ground firmly, successfully defending 15 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination and site control proved to be crucial.
Zero Tenacity analytics
The team Zero Tenacity managed to secure 0 out of 21 rounds, but faced challenges in adapting to their opponent's strategies. Capturing 0 plants during the match did not lead the team to victory.
The standout players for Zero Tenacity were Cjoffo contributed 14 kills and simke contributed 14 kills. 5923 of total damage by Zero Tenacity could not prevent PROSPECTS from securing the victory
On the defensive side, Zero Tenacity struggled to hold their ground, successfully defending 0 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination faced challenges, making it difficult to maintain site control.
0 Comments